This is a complete sample Build Report on a real Montana parcel.
Every figure below was produced by the live analysis pipeline from official public data — nothing here is mocked up. Owner name and assessed values are withheld on this public page. This is exactly what you receive when you run a report on your own property.
Check your own propertyMontana Build Report
S01, T04 N, R07 E, ACRES 979.08, ALL
979.08 acres · Gallatin County, Montana · prepared for: build a home
Prepared by Montana Build Report · Data accessed August 14, 2026 · Parcel 06130501101010000
Build report summary
Preliminary build outlook
MORE INVESTIGATION NEEDED
The available data raises several matters that should be resolved before purchase or design. That may reflect real physical constraints, or it may reflect how little the public record says about this parcel. The findings below distinguish between the two.
1
Favourable
6
To investigate
3
Constraints
8
Context
What drove this
- Most of the complexity on this parcel comes from septic & wastewater, access, terrain.
- 3 findings rose to the level of a potential constraint rather than something merely worth checking.
- Several categories depend on county records that are not published in machine-readable form. We name the office to call for each rather than inferring a rule.
Build complexity
55 / 100
Elevated complexity
Higher means more to work through, not a worse property. 17% of this score is data uncertainty rather than a known physical constraint.
- Septic & wastewater
- 16 / 16
- Access
- 12 / 12
- Terrain
- 9.3 / 12
- Soilsdata uncertain
- 6.2 / 10
- Wildfiredata uncertain
- 5 / 8
- Wetlands & hydrography
- 4.6 / 10
- Zoning, planning & permittingdata uncertain
- 2 / 10
- Water
- 0 / 10
- Flood
- 0 / 12
Preliminary septic outlook: significant mapped limitations
No mapped road reaches the parcel boundary
Limited gentle ground — about 16% is mapped below 10% slope · About 22% of the parcel is mapped at 30% slope or steeper
Shallow bedrock is mapped · A seasonal high water table is mapped · Soils with shrink-swell potential are mapped
No fire district is mapped at this location
Mapped wetland or riparian features on the parcel
Build Complexity is not a grade and not a buildability rating. It counts how many things about this parcel are likely to take work, cost money, or need a professional to resolve. A high score can describe an outstanding property — a creek, mature trees, a hillside view and forty acres of privacy will score higher than a flat, featureless lot on a paved road. Every point is traceable to a finding you can read below; nothing contributes to it that is not shown. Missing data raises the score rather than lowering it, because an information gap is a real cost and never a clean bill of health.
Section 1
Parcel
- Parcel / geocode
- 06130501101010000
- County
- Gallatin County
- Acreage
- 979.08 ac
- Coordinates
- 46.13080, -110.80135
- Township / range / section
- 04 N · 07 E · 01
- Legal description
- S01, T04 N, R07 E, ACRES 979.08, ALL
- Subdivision
- Not recorded
- Certificate of survey
- Not recorded
- Property type
- Vacant Land
- Assessor access class
- Not recorded
- Tax year
- 2026
- Irrigated acres
- Not recorded
- Forest acres
- Not recorded
- Grazing acres
- 979.08
979.08 acres in Gallatin County
CONTEXTThe cadastral record lists this parcel at 979.08 acres, described as S01, T04 N, R07 E, ACRES 979.08, ALL.
Why it matters. Acreage drives almost everything downstream — whether a well and septic system are required, what setbacks apply, whether the parcel could be divided, and how the county treats it for subdivision review.
Next step. Confirm acreage and boundaries against a survey or title commitment. Cadastral acreage is calculated from assessment mapping and commonly differs from a surveyed figure.
Based on: Montana Cadastral Framework parcel record.
The cadastral framework is an assessment and taxation record, not a survey. Boundaries are mapped to assessor accuracy and routinely differ from a surveyed line by feet and occasionally by much more. Ownership reflects the last processed transfer, so a recent sale may not appear. It carries no easements, no covenants, and no legal-access information.
Section 2
Terrain
Elevation, relief, slope and aspect computed from the USGS 3D Elevation Program, sampled across the parcel boundary.
Gentle ground is present but limited at or below 10% slope — roughly 152.7 of 979.1 acres, based on 442 elevation samples inside the mapped boundary. The parcel falls 967 feet from its high point to its low point, which is significant relief for site design, driveway grades and utility runs. The largest connected area of gentle ground is approximately 53.16 acres, which indicates whether that ground is in one usable piece or scattered across the parcel. Slope alone does not establish that a structure can be built at any particular spot — soils, groundwater, setbacks, access and county requirements all bear on that, and none of them is visible in an elevation surface.
Elevation range
5,945ft
Feet above sea level.
Highest point
6,912ft
Feet above sea level.
Total relief
967ft
Total elevation change across the parcel.
Median slope
19.3%
Mean slope
20.4%
Sampled from a 1 m 3DEP raster.
Steep extent (95th pct)
38.5%
Reported at the 95th percentile rather than the single steepest sample, because an isolated maximum on an elevation surface is usually a ditch edge or a data artefact rather than real ground.
At or below 10% slope
15.6%
Share of the parcel at or below 10% mapped slope.
Dominant aspect
E
Predominant downslope direction. Relevant to snow retention, solar gain, and how early ground dries in spring.
Slope distribution across the parcel
- 0–5%
- 3.2%~31.01 ac
- 5–10%
- 12.4%~121.83 ac
- 10–20%
- 37.6%~367.71 ac
- 20–30%
- 24.7%~241.45 ac
- 30% and over
- 22.2%~217.08 ac
Largest connected area at or below 10% slope
53.2ac
Largest connected run of sampled nodes at or below 10% mapped slope. An indication of whether gentle ground is coherent or scattered — not a building envelope.
Limited gentle ground — about 16% is mapped below 10% slope
POTENTIAL CONSTRAINTMapped slope from USGS 3DEP puts 15.6% of the parcel at or below 10%, with a median of 19.3% and 967 feet of total relief. The largest connected area of gentle ground is approximately 53.16 acres.
Why it matters. Steeper ground raises the cost of nearly everything physical: excavation, retaining, driveway grade and switchbacks, drainfield siting, and winter access. It rarely prevents building; it reliably changes the budget.
Next step. Walk the parcel with a builder or excavator before purchase and identify a specific building envelope and driveway route rather than assuming one exists.
Based on: 442 elevation samples inside the parcel boundary on a 90 m grid.
About 22% of the parcel is mapped at 30% slope or steeper
WORTH INVESTIGATING22.2% of sampled ground, roughly 217.08 acres, is mapped at or above 30% slope.
Why it matters. Slopes above 30% are where engineered foundations, retaining structures and switchback driveways start to appear, and where several Montana counties impose additional review. They also constrain drainfield placement, which is regulated by slope.
Next step. If the steep ground is where the view is — which is usually why it matters — get an excavator's opinion on access and a designer's view on foundation type before you commit.
Based on: Slope distribution across the sampled grid.
Predominantly E-facing ground
CONTEXTThe parcel's dominant mapped aspect is E.
Why it matters. South and west-facing ground sheds snow earlier and gains more winter sun, which generally helps access and heating but cures vegetation earlier in fire season.
Based on: Aspect computed from the elevation surface.
Sampled at 442 interior points on a 90 m grid from 3DEP rasters at 1 m resolution. A bare-earth elevation surface. It does not know about fill, cut, existing grading, or anything built since the collection was flown. Slope computed from it describes the mapped landform, not a graded building pad, and cannot see a soft spot, a spring, or bedrock an inch below the surface.
Section 3
Soils
USDA NRCS soil survey data for this parcel, translated into what it means for building and for onsite wastewater.
The dominant mapped soil is Bangtail-Copenhaver-Adel complex, 15 to 35 percent slopes covering roughly 28% of the parcel where we sampled it (25 points), with Bangtail as its principal component. It is mapped as well drained, which is generally workable ground for building and for an onsite system. Soil mapping at this scale describes a landscape pattern rather than a specific building site: the smallest unit NRCS reliably maps is several acres, so a single house envelope can sit entirely within an inclusion the map never shows. Treat this as the reason to place test pits thoughtfully, not as a result that replaces them.
Hydrologic soil groups
B, B/D, C, D
Hydrologic soil group describes infiltration behaviour: A soils drain freely, D soils shed water.
Drainage classes mapped
Well drained, Somewhat poorly drained, Very poorly drained
Shallowest restrictive layer
10in
Shallowest mapped depth to a restrictive layer across the parcel, in inches.
Map units on parcel
10
Coverage measured at 25 sampled points.
| Soil map unit | Coverage | Principal component | Drainage | Group |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bangtail-Copenhaver-Adel complex, 15 to 35 percent slopes | 28% | Bangtail40% | Well drained | C |
| Bangtail-Copenhaver complex, 8 to 25 percent slopes | 20% | Bangtail60% | Well drained | C |
| Copenhaver-Rock outcrop complex, 8 to 35 percent slopes | 16% | Copenhaver70% | Well drained | D |
| Bangtail-Copenhaver complex, 35 to 60 percent slopes | 16% | Bangtail70% | Well drained | C |
| Enbar-Bowery-Nythar complex, 4 to 15 percent slopes | 8% | Enbar55% | Somewhat poorly drained | C |
| Timberlin-Copenhaver complex, 35 to 60 percent slopes | 8% | Timberlin65% | Well drained | C |
| Bangtail-Adel loams, 4 to 25 percent slopes | 4% | Bangtail45% | Well drained | C |
| Copenhaver flaggy loam, 35 to 60 percent slopes | < sample | Copenhaver85% | Well drained | D |
| Bangtail-Timberlin complex, 35 to 60 percent slopes, stony | < sample | Bangtail60% | Well drained | C |
| Bacbuster-Wilsall-Castner complex, 4 to 15 percent slopes | < sample | Bacbuster60% | Well drained | D |
Construction considerations
- Mapped soils include material with meaningful shrink-swell potential. Expansive soil is a routine foundation design problem rather than a deal-breaker, but it is one an engineer should price rather than discover.
- Shallow bedrock affects excavation for foundations, utility trenches and water lines. It is frequently the largest single surprise in a rural site-work budget.
- A high seasonal water table bears on basement feasibility, foundation drainage and frost design.
- Hydrologic group D soils are present, which run off rather than infiltrate. Expect stormwater and driveway drainage to need real design attention.
- Mapped soils are moderately to highly erodible, which matters during construction disturbance and for long-term driveway and cut-slope stability.
10 distinct soil map units intersect this parcel. Variable soils across a single property are normal in Montana and are a reason to place test pits where the building envelope will actually go, rather than at the easiest point of access.
Dominant mapped soil: Bangtail-Copenhaver-Adel complex, 15 to 35 percent slopes
CONTEXTBangtail is the principal mapped component, hydrologic group C, mapped as well drained. 10 soil map units intersect the parcel in total, spanning hydrologic groups B, B/D, C, D.
Why it matters. Soil type drives foundation design, excavation cost, drainage behaviour and — most consequentially in rural Montana — whether a conventional septic system will work.
Next step. Use the soil map to decide where to dig test pits, not as a substitute for digging them.
Based on: 10 SSURGO map units intersecting the parcel.
Shallow bedrock is mapped
WORTH INVESTIGATINGThe mapped soil components include bedrock within about 40 inches of the surface.
Why it matters. Shallow rock is one of the largest and most common surprises in a rural site-work budget. It affects foundation excavation, utility trenching, water line depth and frequently rules out a conventional drainfield.
Next step. Have test pits dug where you intend to build, not merely where a machine can reach easily. An excavator can establish this in a morning for a fraction of what discovering it later costs.
Based on: SSURGO component restriction depths.
A seasonal high water table is mapped
WORTH INVESTIGATINGMapped soil components indicate a seasonal high water table within roughly four feet of the surface.
Why it matters. A high water table is the most frequent reason a Montana site needs an engineered rather than conventional septic system, and it bears directly on basement feasibility and foundation drainage. It is also seasonal, so a dry-season site visit can miss it entirely.
Next step. Ask the county sanitarian what they have seen in the immediate area, and time a site evaluation for spring where possible.
Based on: SSURGO soil moisture and water table records.
Soils with shrink-swell potential are mapped
WORTH INVESTIGATINGAt least one mapped component has a linear extensibility high enough to indicate expansive behaviour.
Why it matters. Expansive soil moves as it wets and dries, which is a routine foundation design problem when known in advance and an expensive structural one when discovered afterwards.
Next step. Flag this for whoever designs the foundation, and consider a geotechnical investigation before finalising the design.
Based on: SSURGO linear extensibility values.
SSURGO is mapped for land-management planning at roughly 1:24,000. The smallest reliably mapped unit is a few acres, so a single building envelope can sit entirely inside a soil inclusion the map never shows. It is not a geotechnical investigation and not a percolation test, and NRCS says so directly. Its septic and construction ratings are screening ratings, not determinations.
Section 4
Septic & wastewater
A screening view of onsite wastewater feasibility, and the authority that actually decides.
Preliminary septic outlook
Significant mapped limitations
Several mapped soil characteristics point toward real constraints on a conventional system. This does not mean a system is impossible — engineered alternatives exist across Montana — but it does mean cost and feasibility should be established before purchase, not after.
What the mapped soils indicate
- Part of the parcel is mapped with restricted drainage, which bears directly on how a drainfield performs.
- A restrictive layer is mapped at approximately 10 inches, which can limit the vertical separation a conventional drainfield requires.
- Shallow bedrock is mapped, which commonly drives excavation cost and can rule out a conventional system in favour of an engineered alternative.
- A seasonal high water table is mapped within about four feet of the surface, which is one of the most common reasons a Montana site needs an alternative system.
- NRCS rates the mapped soils as limited for septic absorption fields. That rating is a screening indicator, not a determination.
- The mapped soils indicate a flooding frequency other than none.
A licensed site evaluator and the county environmental health authority make the actual determination. Nothing in this section approves or rejects a septic system, and no soil map can.
County sanitation authority
Gallatin City-County Health Department, Environmental Health Services
Preliminary septic outlook: significant mapped limitations
POTENTIAL CONSTRAINTPart of the parcel is mapped with restricted drainage, which bears directly on how a drainfield performs. A restrictive layer is mapped at approximately 10 inches, which can limit the vertical separation a conventional drainfield requires. Shallow bedrock is mapped, which commonly drives excavation cost and can rule out a conventional system in favour of an engineered alternative. A seasonal high water table is mapped within about four feet of the surface, which is one of the most common reasons a Montana site needs an alternative system. NRCS rates the mapped soils as limited for septic absorption fields. That rating is a screening indicator, not a determination. The mapped soils indicate a flooding frequency other than none.
Why it matters. In most of rural Montana there is no sewer, so the property's value and its buildability both depend on an onsite system being approvable. A licensed site evaluator and the county sanitarian make that determination — a soil map cannot.
Next step. Engage a licensed site evaluator and confirm requirements with Gallatin City-County Health Department, Environmental Health Services (406-582-3120).
Based on: NRCS soil interpretation ratings and mapped soil characteristics, screened against common Montana onsite-system constraints.
Need a licensed site evaluator or septic installer?
Find septic professionalsSection 5
Water
Well depth, yield, groundwater and water rights — analysed by Montana Water Report rather than duplicated here.
Not available in this report
Water analysis for this parcel is served by Montana Water Report and is not yet wired into this report.
Water is too important to summarise from a thinner dataset than the one the sibling platform already maintains — it holds the Bureau of Mines well logs, DNRC water rights, controlled groundwater areas and basin closures. Rather than produce a weaker second opinion here, we link you to the full analysis. On rural Montana land, whether a well can be drilled, how deep, and whether a water right exists frequently matters more than anything else in this report.
Water is covered by Montana Water Report
CONTEXTWell depth, yield, groundwater levels, water rights and basin restrictions for this parcel are analysed by our sibling platform rather than duplicated here.
Why it matters. On undeveloped Montana land, water is frequently the deciding factor. What a well will cost, whether one is even permitted inside a controlled groundwater area or closed basin, and whether a water right attaches to the property are questions that change what the land is worth.
Next step. Run this parcel through Montana Water Report at https://montanawaterreport.com before you rely on any assumption about water.
Based on: Ecosystem integration; not derived in this report.
Section 6
Wildfire
Exposure, fuels and fire history — analysed by Montana Fire Report rather than duplicated here.
Not available in this report
Wildfire analysis for this parcel is served by Montana Fire Report and is not yet wired into this report.
Exposure modelling — fuels, terrain, burn probability, flame length and fire history — is analysed in depth by the sibling platform rather than approximated here. Note that no fire district was mapped at this location, which is itself worth confirming.
Wildfire exposure is covered by Montana Fire Report
CONTEXTFuels, terrain, burn probability, modelled flame length, canopy structure and nearby fire history are analysed by our sibling platform rather than duplicated here.
Why it matters. Wildfire exposure affects insurance availability and pricing across much of rural Montana, shapes defensible-space and home-hardening decisions, and increasingly influences what lenders will accept. It is also the one risk on this list a landowner can materially reduce through their own work.
Next step. Run this parcel through Montana Fire Report at https://montanafirereport.com, and request the free DNRC home wildfire risk assessment, which is the only evaluation that looks at an actual structure.
Based on: Ecosystem integration; not derived in this report.
No fire district is mapped at this location
WORTH INVESTIGATINGState boundary mapping returned no fire protection district covering this parcel.
Why it matters. Property outside a fire district can be materially harder and more expensive to insure, and in some cases uninsurable through standard carriers. It also means structural fire response may be limited to whatever mutual aid can reach the address.
Next step. Confirm with the county and with an insurance agent who writes rural Montana property before committing. This is worth resolving before purchase rather than at closing.
Based on: Fire districts layer returned no intersecting feature.
Section 7
Flood
FEMA National Flood Hazard Layer, intersected with this parcel boundary.
Flood outlook
Outside mapped high-risk flood area
No part of the mapped parcel boundary falls inside a FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area. This is a statement about the map, not about the ground: flooding from small drainages, alluvial fans, ice jams, irrigation infrastructure and intense local rainfall is frequently not modelled, and a meaningful share of national flood claims come from outside mapped high-risk zones.
No part of the mapped parcel boundary falls inside a FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area. That is a genuinely useful finding, and it is a statement about the map rather than the ground. FEMA mapping models the larger drainages; it routinely does not model small tributaries, alluvial fans, ice jams, failed irrigation infrastructure, or intense local rainfall on frozen soil. Roughly a quarter of national flood claims come from outside mapped high-risk zones.
Mapped zones
D
Zone D means flood hazard is undetermined — no analysis has been done, which is not the same as low risk.
Outside mapped high-risk flood area
NO CONCERN IDENTIFIEDFEMA mapping shows zone D intersecting the parcel boundary.
Why it matters. No part of the mapped parcel boundary falls inside a FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area. This is a statement about the map, not about the ground: flooding from small drainages, alluvial fans, ice jams, irrigation infrastructure and intense local rainfall is frequently not modelled, and a meaningful share of national flood claims come from outside mapped high-risk zones.
Next step. No action is required on the mapped floodplain question. If a stream, ditch or swale crosses the property, ask the county floodplain administrator whether local rules apply regardless of the FEMA map.
Based on: Geometric intersection of the parcel boundary with the FEMA National Flood Hazard Layer.
A regulatory insurance and floodplain-management map, not a hydrologic study of a specific parcel. Being outside a mapped high-risk zone is not an absence of flood risk — roughly a quarter of national flood claims come from outside mapped high-risk areas. Unmapped areas carry no determination at all. Local flooding from small drainages, alluvial fans, ice jams and irrigation infrastructure is frequently not modelled.
Section 8
Wetlands & hydrography
Mapped wetlands, streams and riparian features. Mapped features only — never a jurisdictional determination.
Wetland outlook
Mapped wetland or riparian features on the parcel
One or more mapped wetland features fall inside the boundary. This is common on rural Montana acreage and frequently manageable — but it should be resolved by a delineation before you commit to a building envelope, because work in a jurisdictional wetland requires federal authorisation.
Approximately 0.2% of the mapped parcel boundary overlaps mapped wetland features (freshwater emergent wetland). On rural acreage this is common and often entirely workable — the practical consequence is usually that the building envelope, drainfield and driveway need to be sited with the wetland in mind, and that any work touching it needs federal authorisation. The National Wetlands Inventory is interpreted from aerial imagery, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service states directly that it makes no attempt to define the limits of federal or state jurisdiction. Only a delineation by a qualified consultant, and a jurisdictional determination by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, answers the regulatory question. Mapped hydrography also crosses this parcel, which typically explains the wetland's presence and brings its own setback and water-right questions.
Parcel overlapping wetland
0.2%
Share of the mapped parcel boundary overlapping mapped wetland polygons. Our own geometric intersection; both the parcel boundary and the wetland edge are approximate.
Wetland types mapped
Freshwater Emergent Wetland
Emergent wetland is the classic wet meadow or marsh — herbaceous vegetation in saturated ground, often seasonal in Montana.
Hydrography crossing parcel
unnamed 460
Mapped hydrography crossing the parcel. A mapped channel does not establish an ordinary high-water mark, a setback, or a jurisdictional call — and in Montana it also raises the separate question of whether any associated water right exists.
Mapped hydrography near this parcel
| Feature | Type | Flow | On parcel | Distance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cottonwood Creek | 460 | perennial | No | 1,780 ft |
| Cottonwood Creek | 460 | perennial | No | 1,586 ft |
| Unnamed | 460 | intermittent | No | 312 ft |
| Unnamed | 460 | intermittent | No | 1,780 ft |
| Unnamed | 460 | intermittent | Yes | — |
Mapped wetland or riparian features on the parcel
WORTH INVESTIGATINGApproximately 0.2% of the parcel overlaps mapped wetland features (Freshwater Emergent Wetland).
Why it matters. One or more mapped wetland features fall inside the boundary. This is common on rural Montana acreage and frequently manageable — but it should be resolved by a delineation before you commit to a building envelope, because work in a jurisdictional wetland requires federal authorisation.
Next step. Commission a wetland delineation before finalising a building envelope. Work in a jurisdictional wetland requires authorisation from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the mapped edge is not the regulated edge.
Based on: Geometric intersection of the parcel with National Wetlands Inventory polygons.
Mapped hydrography crosses this parcel
CONTEXTunnamed 460 is mapped crossing the parcel.
Why it matters. Surface water is usually the reason people want the land, and it brings its own questions: setbacks from the ordinary high-water mark, floodplain permitting, bridge or culvert requirements for access, and whether any water right attaches to it.
Next step. Ask specifically whether a water right is associated with the parcel — Montana has no authoritative parcel-to-water-right link, so this needs DNRC and a professional to answer.
Based on: NHDPlus High Resolution flowlines intersecting the parcel.
NWI is photo-interpreted from aerial imagery and is explicitly NOT a jurisdictional wetland determination. USFWS states there is no attempt to define the limits of federal or state jurisdiction. Small wetlands, narrow riparian strips and forested wetlands are systematically under-mapped. Only a delineation by a qualified consultant, and a jurisdictional call by the Army Corps, answers the regulatory question.
Section 9
Access
What mapping can show about physical access — kept rigorously separate from legal access, which no dataset can establish.
Physical access and legal access are different questions
Everything in this section describes mapped, physical routes. Legal access comes from recorded easements, deeded rights of way and plat dedications, none of which appear in any mapping dataset. Confirm legal access through a title commitment.
No mapped road reaches the parcel boundary. The nearest mapped centreline is approximately 1,289 feet away, which means access would need to be established across the intervening ground — a cost that depends on terrain, drainage crossings and, critically, on whether the right to cross exists at all. Legal access is a separate question from physical access, and no mapping dataset can answer it. Recorded easements, deeded rights of way, plat dedications and prescriptive claims live in county records and title work. Confirm legal access through a title commitment before purchase, and where access crosses private ground, have the easement language read by a professional — including whether it permits construction traffic and who is responsible for maintenance.
Mapped road at boundary
No
Physical indication only.
Nearest mapped road
1,289ft
Straight-line distance from the parcel centroid to the nearest mapped road centreline. Not a driveway length and not a route.
Nearest road
Pulis
Local
Surfaces mapped nearby
Not recorded
No mapped road reaches the parcel boundary
POTENTIAL CONSTRAINTThe nearest mapped road is approximately 1,289 feet away.
Why it matters. Physical access and legal access are different things, and the difference has ended more Montana land purchases than any other single issue. A road on a map is evidence a route exists. It is not evidence you have the right to use it, that it is maintained, or that it is passable in February.
Next step. Confirm legal access through a title commitment and recorded easements, and ask specifically about winter maintenance responsibility. If access crosses another private parcel, get the easement language read by someone who does this for a living.
Based on: Montana transportation framework road centrelines relative to the parcel boundary.
Access or boundary question worth a professional?
Find a surveyorA centreline geometry and classification dataset. It carries no easement, no recorded right of way, no legal access status, and frequently no maintenance responsibility. A line on this layer reaching a parcel is evidence of a physical route, and is not evidence of a right to use it.
Section 10
Public land & land constraints
Federal, state and tribal land nearby, and mapped conservation easements. Whether any of this is an asset or a constraint depends entirely on what you intend to do.
No public land or mapped easement was found in the immediate vicinity
The BLM surface management layer returned no federal, state or tribal parcels within the search envelope, and no conservation easement was mapped nearby. Easement reporting is voluntary and materially incomplete, so this is not evidence that the parcel is unencumbered — only a title search establishes that.
A compilation of easements reported to the state. Participation is not universal and many private easements are absent. Boundaries are approximate and the easement's actual terms are never included — two easements of identical footprint can permit completely different development. The absence of an easement here is not evidence that a parcel is unencumbered; only a title search establishes that.
Section 11
Zoning, planning & permitting
Montana counties differ enormously. Rather than guess at a rule, we identify precisely which offices hold jurisdiction over this parcel.
This county zones only parts of the unincorporated county — typically specific districts, planning areas, or a buffer around a city. Whether a particular parcel is zoned has to be confirmed with the planning office. Gallatin County has zoning regulations that apply in certain zoning districts; not all unincorporated land is zoned — citizen-initiated zoning districts cover portions of the county, and some areas remain unzoned outside city growth boundaries.
Building permits
Gallatin County Planning & Community Development (certified local building authority for unincorporated county)
Sanitation / septic
Gallatin City-County Health Department, Environmental Health Services
Floodplain administrator
Gallatin County Planning & Community Development (Floodplain Administration)
What we could not determine
- A parcel-level zoning district for this property. This county does not publish zoning in a machine-readable form we can read automatically.
- Covenants, conditions and restrictions. Private covenants are recorded against the title rather than published by any agency, and they routinely restrict building far more tightly than county rules do.
- Whether any permit, variance or exemption has previously been issued for this parcel. That record sits with the county and is not published in bulk.
Gallatin County zoning: administered in parts of the county only
CONTEXTThis county zones only parts of the unincorporated county — typically specific districts, planning areas, or a buffer around a city. Whether a particular parcel is zoned has to be confirmed with the planning office. Gallatin County has zoning regulations that apply in certain zoning districts; not all unincorporated land is zoned — citizen-initiated zoning districts cover portions of the county, and some areas remain unzoned outside city growth boundaries.
Why it matters. Montana counties differ enormously. Zoning, building permits, subdivision review, sanitation review and floodplain administration are separate authorities that frequently do not share systems, and the absence of zoning does not mean the absence of rules.
Next step. Contact Gallatin County Planning & Community Development at 406-582-3130 to confirm what applies to this specific parcel.
Based on: County authority registry, researched from primary county sources and verified 2026-08-14.
Nothing in this section is a zoning determination, a permit, or a legal opinion. County rules change, parcels sit in overlapping jurisdictions, and the authoritative answer for a specific property always comes from the office that administers it. We identify those offices so the call takes five minutes instead of an afternoon. County authority details researched and verified 2026-08-14.
Section 12
Utilities & infrastructure
Fire protection district
None mapped
Montana State Library administrative boundaries.
Jurisdiction
Unincorporated county
Electric, gas and broadband service is not confirmed by territory mapping
A parcel falling inside a utility’s service territory does not establish that service currently reaches it. Rural extensions are quoted by the foot and can be the single largest line item in a build — routinely five figures, occasionally six. We do not infer availability from territory, and we do not yet ingest an authoritative statewide electric service-territory layer, so this section reports what we can verify and says plainly what it cannot.
Next step. Call the serving utility with the parcel geocode and ask for a service availability letter and an extension estimate to your intended building site — not to the property line.
Section 13
Nearby development
How isolated or developed this property actually is — which shapes utility cost, emergency response, and what it will feel like to live there.
Structures on parcel
0
Structures within ~1 mile
0
Nearest structure
—
Very few mapped structures within a mile
CONTEXTStructure and address mapping shows 0 structures within roughly a mile of this parcel.
Why it matters. Genuine isolation is what many buyers are looking for, and it has practical consequences: utility extension is priced by the foot, emergency response takes longer, road maintenance may be yours, and services like refuse collection and school bus routes may not reach you.
Next step. Price the utility extension and confirm emergency response coverage before assuming either.
Based on: Montana structures and addresses framework within a one-mile envelope.
Appendix
Sources and limitations
Every source consulted for this report, what it covers, and what it cannot tell you. The limitations are the part a professional reader checks first, so they are stated in full rather than buried.
Montana State Library, Montana Cadastral Framework
Coverage: Statewide, all 56 counties
Limitations. The cadastral framework is an assessment and taxation record, not a survey. Boundaries are mapped to assessor accuracy and routinely differ from a surveyed line by feet and occasionally by much more. Ownership reflects the last processed transfer, so a recent sale may not appear. It carries no easements, no covenants, and no legal-access information.
Licence: Montana State Library open data. Attribution expected; no fee or registration required.
U.S. Geological Survey, 3D Elevation Program (3DEP)
Coverage: Statewide. Best available resolution varies by collection — 1 m lidar where flown, 10 m or 30 m elsewhere.
Limitations. A bare-earth elevation surface. It does not know about fill, cut, existing grading, or anything built since the collection was flown. Slope computed from it describes the mapped landform, not a graded building pad, and cannot see a soft spot, a spring, or bedrock an inch below the surface.
Licence: U.S. Government work, public domain.
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, SSURGO / Soil Data Access
Coverage: Nearly statewide. A small number of Montana survey areas remain unmapped or are mapped only at the coarser STATSGO scale.
Limitations. SSURGO is mapped for land-management planning at roughly 1:24,000. The smallest reliably mapped unit is a few acres, so a single building envelope can sit entirely inside a soil inclusion the map never shows. It is not a geotechnical investigation and not a percolation test, and NRCS says so directly. Its septic and construction ratings are screening ratings, not determinations.
Licence: U.S. Government work, public domain.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Flood Hazard Layer
Coverage: Only where FEMA has mapped. Large areas of rural Montana are unmapped, which is not the same as being outside a floodplain.
Limitations. A regulatory insurance and floodplain-management map, not a hydrologic study of a specific parcel. Being outside a mapped high-risk zone is not an absence of flood risk — roughly a quarter of national flood claims come from outside mapped high-risk areas. Unmapped areas carry no determination at all. Local flooding from small drainages, alluvial fans, ice jams and irrigation infrastructure is frequently not modelled.
Licence: U.S. Government work, public domain.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory
Coverage: Statewide, with highly variable mapping vintage and source imagery scale.
Limitations. NWI is photo-interpreted from aerial imagery and is explicitly NOT a jurisdictional wetland determination. USFWS states there is no attempt to define the limits of federal or state jurisdiction. Small wetlands, narrow riparian strips and forested wetlands are systematically under-mapped. Only a delineation by a qualified consultant, and a jurisdictional call by the Army Corps, answers the regulatory question.
Licence: U.S. Government work, public domain.
Bureau of Land Management, National Surface Management Agency
Coverage: National. Federal, state and tribal surface management agency. Returns no features over private land, which is the correct answer rather than a gap.
Limitations. Surface management agency only. It does not resolve split-estate mineral ownership, does not carry lease status, and does not tell you whether a public parcel is legally accessible — public land touching a boundary is not a right of entry.
Licence: U.S. Government work, public domain.
Montana State Library / Montana Department of Transportation, transportation framework
Coverage: Statewide road centrelines.
Limitations. A centreline geometry and classification dataset. It carries no easement, no recorded right of way, no legal access status, and frequently no maintenance responsibility. A line on this layer reaching a parcel is evidence of a physical route, and is not evidence of a right to use it.
Licence: Montana State Library open data.
Montana State Library, structures and address framework
Coverage: Statewide, uneven by county.
Limitations. Structure points and address points are compiled from county sources at differing vintages. A missing structure does not mean vacant ground, and an address point is not proof a legal address has been assigned.
Licence: Montana State Library open data.
U.S. Geological Survey, National Hydrography Dataset
Coverage: Statewide streams, rivers and waterbodies at NHDPlus High Resolution.
Limitations. Mapped hydrography at 1:24,000. Intermittent and ephemeral channels are inconsistently captured, small irrigation ditches are often absent or indistinguishable from natural channels, and the mapped line does not establish an ordinary high-water mark, a setback, or a jurisdictional call.
Licence: U.S. Government work, public domain.
Montana State Library, administrative boundaries
Coverage: Statewide counties, incorporated places, and fire districts.
Limitations. City limits change by annexation, and the mapped line can lag the ordinance. Whether a parcel is inside city jurisdiction is determined by the municipality, not by this layer. Fire district mapping shows a service boundary and says nothing about response time, staffing, or whether a district will commit to a rural address.
Licence: Montana State Library open data.
Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, Floodplain Management
Coverage: Varies. Montana's own effective SFHA compilation, which is a useful cross-check against the federal layer rather than a replacement for it.
Limitations. Montana floodplain regulation is administered locally by county and municipal floodplain administrators. Neither the state layer nor the FEMA layer substitutes for that administrator's written determination on a specific parcel.
Montana State Library, conservation easements by county
Coverage: Montana-specific and spatially queryable. Preferred over the national NCED, whose public service rejects geometry queries.
Limitations. A compilation of easements reported to the state. Participation is not universal and many private easements are absent. Boundaries are approximate and the easement's actual terms are never included — two easements of identical footprint can permit completely different development. The absence of an easement here is not evidence that a parcel is unencumbered; only a title search establishes that.
Licence: Montana State Library open data; underlying terms vary by easement holder.
Montana State Library, Montana Cadastral Framework — retrieved August 14, 2026
U.S. Geological Survey, 3D Elevation Program (3DEP) — retrieved August 14, 2026
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, SSURGO / Soil Data Access — retrieved August 14, 2026
Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Flood Hazard Layer — retrieved August 14, 2026
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory — retrieved August 14, 2026
What this report is, and is not
Montana Build Report organizes available public data to help identify issues worth investigating. It does not replace site inspections, title work, surveying, engineering, permitting or professional due diligence.
It is not legal advice, land surveying, title research, engineering, geotechnical analysis, a wetland delineation, a septic approval, a zoning determination, or a building permit — and it is not a guarantee that this property can or cannot be built upon.
Prepared by Montana Build Report · Data accessed August 14, 2026